Case 1:18-cv-03338-GLR Document 9 Filed 10/29/18 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
THE STEAMSHIP TRADE
ASSOCIATION OF BALTIMORE, INC.
8615 Ridgely’s Choice Drive, Suite 202
Nottingham, Maryland 21236
Plaintiff
v.

*
*
*

Civil No. GLR-18-3338

*

INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN’S *
ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 333
6610-B Tributary Street
*
Baltimore, Maryland 21224
Defendant
*
*
*************************************
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
On October 29, 2018, plaintiff, the Steamship Trade Association of Baltimore, Inc.
(“STA”), filed suit against defendant, International Longshoremen’s Association, AFL-CIO,
Local 333 (“Local 333”), to enforce provisions of their collective bargaining agreements. See
ECF 1 (“Complaint”). According to the verified complaint, plaintiff is an association holding
the bargaining rights for twenty-five employers and contractors at the Port of Baltimore. Id.
¶ 8. The defendant is a union representing mechanics and operators that provide dockside
labor at the Port. Id. ¶ 9. Plaintiff alleges that Local 333’s members have engaged in an
illegal work stoppage that “shut down Seagirt Marine Terminal” on October 29, 2018. Id. ¶ 6.
Moreover, STA alleges that, absent immediate action by the Court, the work stoppage will
continue into the foreseeable future. Id.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c), plaintiff has also filed a Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (ECF 2), supported by a memorandum of law

 Case 1:18-cv-03338-GLR Document 9 Filed 10/29/18 Page 2 of 4

(ECF 2-1) (collectively, the “TRO Motion”), and several exhibits. See ECF 2-2 to ECF 2-7.
In the Motion, plaintiff seeks to enjoin defendant and its members from continuing to engage
in any strike or work stoppage. ECF 2 at 3.
In response to the filings, the Court held two emergency telephone conferences on
October 29, 2018, with counsel for both sides. See also ECF 3 (Appearance by counsel for
defendant). 1 Argument was presented.
Upon review of the submissions, and upon consideration of the arguments of counsel,
the Court finds that a temporary restraining order is warranted in this case.
Plaintiff has demonstrated that “‘the case is one in which an injunction would be
appropriate despite the Norris-LaGuardia Act.’” Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union,
Local 770, 398 U.S. 235, 254 (1970) (quoting Sinclair Ref. Co. v. Atkinson, 370 U.S. 195, 228
(1970) (Brennan, J. dissenting)). The work stoppage appears to concern a matter that “‘both
parties are contractually bound to arbitrate.’”

Boys Markets, 398 U.S. at 254 (quoting

Sinclair, 370 U.S. at 228). However, according to plaintiff’s counsel, it is not possible to
arbitrate the matter immediately. And, STA’s counsel represented that time is of the essence,
because all thirty-one mechanics went home today, leaving no mechanics at work, and
container handlers left after four hours, despite their contractual agreement to complete
customers’ requirements if asked to do so. Moreover, no workers accepted replacement work
from the dispatch center. ECF 1, ¶ 2. 2

1

The case is assigned to Judge George Russell, III. Due to his unavailability, I handled
the matter as Chambers Judge.
2

“When all the members of a union employed by a given employer engage in a concerted
strike not formally authorized by the union, as happened here, many courts hold the union
responsible on the theory that mass action by union members must realistically be regarded as
union action. The premise is that large groups of men do not act collectively without leadership
2

 Case 1:18-cv-03338-GLR Document 9 Filed 10/29/18 Page 3 of 4

Notably, Local 333’s work stoppage imposes significant harm not only on STA, but on
numerous businesses and the Port of Baltimore. Plaintiff’s counsel represented that 1,100
truckers did not receive their cargo today and 3,300 will not receive their cargo tomorrow if
the TRO is not awarded.
The Court is also of the view that plaintiff has a substantial likelihood of prevailing on
the merits in this case; that, in the absence of such temporary relief, plaintiff will suffer
irreparable injury; the balance of the equities favors plaintiff; and an injunction is in the public
interest. Boys Markets, 398 U.S. at 254 (quoting Sinclair, 370 U.S. at 228); see also Benisek
v. Lamone, ____ U.S. ____, 138 S. Ct. 1942, 1944 (2018); Winter v. Natural Res. Def.
Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citing Munaf v. Geren. 553 U.S. 674, 689-90 (2008));
accord Centro Tepeyac v. Montgomery Cty., 722 F.3d 184, 188 (4th Cir. 2013); Pashby v.
Delia, 709 F.3d 307, 320 (4th Cir. 2013).
Accordingly, it is this 29th day of October 2018, ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s TRO Motion is granted;
2. Local 333 and its union officials are temporarily enjoined by way of this temporary
restraining order to cease and desist from further violations of the parties’
collective bargaining agreements with respect to provisions governing illegal work
stoppages and strikes, threats of illegal work stoppages and strikes against the
Steamship Trade Association of Baltimore, Inc. and its employer members,
including but not limited to Ports America Chesapeake, LLC, given the irreparable
harm that will result to the Port of Baltimore’s business absent temporarily
restraining Local 333 from a work stoppage 3;
3. Plaintiff shall promptly pursue arbitration, in accordance with the parties’
and that a functioning union must be held responsible for the mass action of its members.”
Carbon Fuel Co. v. United Mine Workers of Am., 582 F.2d 1346, 1349 (4th Cir. 1978), (quoting
Eazor Exp., Inc. v. International Bro. of Team., 520 F.2d 951, 963 (1975)), aff’d, 444 U.S. 212
(1979).
3

During the Court’s second telephone conference with counsel, defense counsel opposed
the TRO but represented that, if granted, he did not object to the language in paragraph 2.
3

 Case 1:18-cv-03338-GLR Document 9 Filed 10/29/18 Page 4 of 4

collective bargaining agreements;
4. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c), plaintiff shall provide security in the amount of
$2,500 to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been
wrongfully enjoined or restrained, due by the close of business on October 30,
2018;
5. The Clerk is directed to docket this Temporary Restraining Order immediately;
6. This Order shall expire on November 12, 2018 at 5:00 p.m., unless before that time
the Court, for good cause, extends it or the adverse party consents to a longer
extension; and
7. The parties are directed to contact Judge Russell’s Chambers promptly for further
scheduling related to this matter.
/s/
Hon. Ellen Lipton Hollander,
United States District Judge

4